Wizard's First Rule -- Anger and Truth

[Zen]

How do you feel about Goodkind's characterization of the Sword of Truth? It seems that Richard must experience a "righteous anger" to use the sword....How do you feel about that? Does it go against Richard's personality? Is it bring out the best or the worst in him? Do you wish that the Sword had been something else (scales of balance, a rock, a living creature, etc)?

[Jim]

I found it a scary sort of fanaticism. When things get far enough out of hand that he must use it, then options drop like flies. The world comes down to B&W & 'justice will be done' - no matter what that might mean in real world terms.

[Hayley]

I definitely agree with the black and white issue, which I think the sword really plays into. I'm reaching from an older reading of this book (as I didn't have time to reread) but I recall Zed talking of how the sword's anger and insta-killing ability (ie: Kalan and the tree she thought was evil). Right there we have the potential flaw that things are not truly good or bad, but only perceived to be that way by the character, but Goodkind doesn't take this anywhere.

Things become so black and white, and the sword and its righteous judgment help Richard make some grand, sweeping conclusions, especially in later books, by conveniently overlooking the shades of grey that come with a realistic world.

In terms of his personality (which is an interesting way of looking at it), I find it a very strange plot device. Much more convincing I think would be a character who struggles to control anger, as opposed to one who struggles to unleash it. Goodkind never characterizes Richard as meek or uncertain, so it never feels as though there is a struggle to overcome his father's teachings and indulge in his anger. Plus I think the larger majority of readers would find it easier to get angry rather than keep a cool head, so it's not a struggle we can empathize with as I see it.

[Shannon]

The entire series is very black-and-white, which I find to be its biggest flaw. It also seems to feed directly into - or from - a particular way of thinking or attitude that typically characterises certain parts of the States. Goodkind's personal politics are very front and centre, and pretty narrow too.

[Rae]

What about Shota? She's not black-and-white.

[Hayley]

Ah yes, that's a good point to make Kahlen. I was definitely a fan of Shota when I read these books a few years ago.

The problem is that these sorts of dynamic, intriguing characters seem to crop up in minor roles. Where Goodkind focuses his attention, on Richard and Kalan, their enemies, their 'politics' etc, things become very black and white. (Shannon I definitely agree with your point there, and found those views became more and more front and centre throughout later books. I think is was Faith of the Fallen when I put the series aside, losing hope in any signs of what interested me in Wizard's First Rule)

Having Shota pop up once in a while in the books was refreshing for her ambiguity. A much more interesting character than Goodkind's other interpretations of 'witch-like' women that we see in later books.

[Rae]

Hayley, I agree. I think that when we first meet the Sisters of the Light, it's a little obscure if they are out for the greater good, or their own. But that ambiguity is cleared up when we get all of the information.

As I guess can be said for any ambiguous character.

[Steven]

I have no problem with dealing of issues of black and white. Sometimes it is nice to spend a little bit of time with something that is a little more concrete then the world that we deal with.
At the same time, while I realize that there is plenty of grey in this world, I do think that we tend to try to take black and white things and shade them as grey to make ourselves feel better.